Against the Physicists, Books IX-X of Against the Learned Section 315

ἀπὸ πάσης δὲ μονάδος ἀφαιρουμένης καὶ ἀφ’ ἑαυτῆς τῆς μιᾶς μονάδος ἔσται ἡ τῆς μιᾶς μονάδος ἄρσις <δεκάδος ἄρσις> ἄτοπον δέ ἐστι τὴν τῆς μονάδος δεκάδος λέγειν ἄρσιν ὑπάρχειν. ἄτοπον ἄρα καὶ ἀπὸ δεκάδος ἀξιοῦν ἀφαιρεῖσθαι μονάδα. καὶ μὴν ἀπὸ τῆς περιλειπομένης ἐννεάδος οὐκ ἂν εἴποιμεν ταύτην ἀφαιρεῖσθαι. εἰ γὰρ ἀπὸ τῆς ἐννεάδος ἀφαιρεῖται ἡ μονάς, οὐκ ὤφειλε μετὰ τὴν ἄρσιν αὐτῆς ὁλόκληρος θεωρεῖσθαι ἡ ἐννεάς· τὸ γὰρ ἀφ’ οὗ τι ἀφαιρεῖται, οὐ μένει ὁλόκληρον μετὰ τὴν ἀφαίρεσιν, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἔσται γεγονυῖά τις ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ἀφαίρεσις.

But if it is subtracted from every unit and from itself, the removal of the single unit will be the removal of the decad. Yet it is absurd to say that removing a unit is removing a decad. Therefore it is also absurd to maintain that a unit is subtracted from a decad. Nor indeed could we say that it is subtracted from the remaining ennead. For if the unit is subtracted from the ennead, the ennead ought not to be seen as whole after its removal. That from which something is subtracted does not remain whole after the subtraction, since otherwise no subtraction will have occurred from it.

Mais si elle est retranchée de toute unité et d’elle-même, le retrait d’une seule unité sera <le retrait d’une dizaine>. Or il est absurde de dire que le retrait d’une unité est celui d’une dizaine. Il est donc également absurde de soutenir qu’une unité est retranchée d’une dizaine. Et certes, nous ne saurions dire qu’elle est retranchée de la neuvaine restante. Car si l’unité est retranchée de la neuvaine, celle-ci ne devrait pas demeurer entière après son retrait ; ce dont quelque chose est retranché ne reste pas entier après la soustraction, sans quoi aucune soustraction ne s’en serait produite.